The invention relates to the manufacturing of containers starting from preforms made of plastic material, in particular polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
More specifically, the invention relates to a preform that is designed for forming a container by blow molding or stretch blow molding within a mold that bears the impression of the container.
A container ordinarily comprises a generally rotationally-symmetrical side wall that extends along a central axis, a neck that extends in continuation of the side wall and by which the container is designed to be filled and emptied, and a bottom that extends transversely starting from a lower end of the body and by which the container is designed to rest on a flat surface.
A preform ordinarily comprises a body of essentially cylindrical shape (designed to form the side wall of the container), an open neck that extends in continuation of the body starting from an upper end of the latter, and from which it is separated by a collar (the neck remains unchanged during the process of forming the container), as well as a bottom that closes the body at a lower end of the latter (and designed to form the bottom of the container).
Regardless of the shape of the bottom of the container that is to be formed, the vast majority of the preforms have a bottom with a shape that is convex, hemispherical or more generally bent toward the outside, cf., for example, the European patent application EP 2 697 024 (Sidel) or its U.S. equivalent US 2014/030461. However, in the vast majority thereof, the containers have a concave bottom. It is therefore understood that during forming, the material of the bottom should, starting from a convex profile, be inverted to take on a concave profile. This inversion induces stresses in the material that can generate microcracks. Such microcracks can be propagated when the container is put under pressure. Even events of rupture are noted in certain applications (this is typically the case of certain containers with petaloid bottoms, provided with alternating projecting feet and recessed valleys and designed for carbonated beverages). The risk of cracking (and rupture) is aggravated by the tendency of the market, in search of savings in material and reduction of polluting emissions, to impose a reduction in the weight (and therefore in the thickness) of preforms. This risk is also made worse by the increase in production rates (several tens of thousands of containers produced per hour and per machine), which induces a reduction in the individual manufacturing cycle time of the container. The result is a reduction in contact time of the container with the mold, and therefore a less favorable cooling of the container.
Let us add that certain plastic materials (this is in particular the case of PET, very widely used in the manufacturing of containers) have a shape memory effect, i.e., that after having been deformed plastically starting from an initial stable shape (vitreous in the case of a preform made of PET), these materials undergo, over time, internal stresses that make them move toward their initial shape.
In the case of containers, this memory effect induces undesirable deformations on the bottoms of the containers, which then become unstable and whose mechanical strength decreases, accompanying a reduction in the clearance (i.e., the distance, measured axially, between the center of the bottom and the laying plane defined by the latter).
As a first approximation, it could be imagined that it is enough to make the bottoms of the preforms concave, as illustrated in the U.S. patent application US 2013/0244050 (Husky).
If such a shape actually makes it possible to reduce the memory effect, by contrast it is unfortunately necessary to note that it is not enough to solve the cracking problem, which proves subtler than it appears. In particular, even obtained starting from preforms with concave bottoms, the petaloid bottoms are often subject to the cracking phenomenon, primarily on the inner edges of the feet, at the junction with a central arch of the bottom. It is further observed—which can partly explain this phenomenon—that this junction also forms, on the molecular level, the limit between a zone (the feet) in which the material is relatively elongated (and therefore fairly crystalline) and a zone (the center) in which the material is relatively more amorphous.
One objective is consequently to propose a preform whose geometry makes it possible to decrease the cracking risks.
For this purpose, in the first place, a preform of a container that is made of plastic material is proposed, which preform comprises:
0.65·E0≤E≤0.95·E0
It was possible to verify, during the forming of containers with petaloid bottoms starting from such preforms, a significant reduction of the cracking phenomena, in particular on the inner edges of the feet, at the junction with the central arch of the bottom.
Various additional characteristics can be provided, by themselves or in combination:
0.70·E0≤E≤0.80·E0
with, preferably:
E≅0.75·E0
E≅0.70·E0
0.2·D≤d≤0.5·D (R1)
with, preferably:
d≅0.35·D
where:
d is the diameter of one end of the bottom, defined by the bulge;
D is the outer diameter of the body, measured at the junction with the bottom;
0.02·D≤h≤0.08·D (R2)
with, preferably:
h≅0.05·D
where h is the bottom clearance, measured between the center of the bottom and the end that is formed by the bulge;
4°≤A≤38° (R3)
with, preferably:
30°≤A≤35°
where A is the angle that forms, with any transverse plane that is perpendicular to the central axis, the tangent, on the external face of the preform, at a point of inflection that is located at the junction between the central concavity and the bulge.
In the second place, a mold for the forming of a preform as presented above is proposed, with this mold comprising:
Other objects and advantages of the invention will become evident from the description of an embodiment, given below with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
In each of
The body 3 of the preform 1 is designed to form a body 4 and a shoulder (not visible) of the container 2 (partly visible in
In the second place, each preform 1 comprises an open neck 5 that extends in continuation of the body 3 starting from an upper end of the latter. The neck 5 has its final shape, which it is designed to retain throughout the entire forming and life of the container 2.
The neck 5 is advantageously separated from the body 3 by a collar 6 that projects radially, by which the preform 1 (and then the container 2) is suspended (or more generally held) during various operations for conveying, for heating the preform 1, or for forming the container 2, and then, respectively, for filling, capping and labeling the latter.
In the third place, each preform 1 comprises a bottom 7 that closes the body 3 starting from a lower end 8 of the latter; i.e., the material of the bottom 7 extends starting from the lower end 8 of the body 3 (cylindrical) to rejoin the central axis X radially and thus to close the preform 1 opposite the neck 5. The bottom 7 is rotationally symmetrical around the central axis X; i.e., it is invariant in the entire longitudinal cutting plane (in other words, passing through the central axis X, corresponding to the plane of the sheet in
Below, the terms “concave” and “convex” are defined in reference to the internal volume of the preform 1. In other words, a zone is said to be concave if its concavity faces toward the outside of the preform 1 and, conversely, convex if its convexity faces toward the outside of the preform 1.
As
More specifically, the bottom 7 has a central concavity 9 and a convex bulge 10 that projects around this concavity 9, with this bulge 10 defining an annular end 11 of the preform 1 in a transverse plane T with an end that is perpendicular to the central axis X.
This shape is designed to promote the formation of a bottom 12 of the container 2 that has a concave central arch 13 and a convex peripheral seat 14. Typically, and as is illustrated in
The preform 1 has an external face 17 and an internal face 18. The bottom 7 has a thickness, denoted E, measured in any longitudinal cutting plane starting from the external face 17. In other words, at any point of the external face 17, the thickness E of the bottom (or more generally of the preform, except for the neck) is the smallest distance from this point to the internal face 18, or, which amounts to the same thing, the radius of the circle that is centered on this point and tangent to the internal face 18 at right angles to this point.
At the junction between the concavity 9 and the bulge 10 that surrounds it, the bottom 7 has, on its external face 17, in any longitudinal cutting plane, a point of inflection PI.
For the requirements for sizing the bottom, the following are noted:
In addition, also for the sizing requirements of the bottom 3, three concentric zones are distinguished on the latter, namely:
In the first embodiment, illustrated in
In the second embodiment, illustrated in
In the third embodiment, illustrated in
To size the bottom 7, use is made of four geometric rules: a rule of diameter, denoted R1, a rule of clearance, denoted R2, an angular rule, denoted R3, and a thickness rule, denoted R4, with the objective being, let us remember, to minimize the occurrence (and the extent) of the cracking phenomenon, not only during the formation of the bottom 12 of the container 2, primarily when the latter has a petaloid shape, but also when the blow-molding fluid of the container 2 is evacuated, while the container 2 is still warm because of the short contact time with the wall of its mold because of the increase in production rates.
Although the first three rules, R1, R2, and R3, are optional, they are nevertheless advantageous because they contribute to the achievement of the objective. The fourth rule, R4, by contrast, is imperative and essentially consists in carrying out the latter.
According to the first rule R1, the diameter d of the end 11 is linked to the overall diameter D of the bottom 7 by a relationship of proportionality in a ratio of between 0.2 (20%) and 0.5 (50%):
0.2·D≤d≤0.5·D (R1)
The lower boundary of this first rule R1, or d≅0.2·D, is illustrated by the first embodiment that is shown in
The upper boundary of this first rule R1, or d≅0.5·D, is illustrated by the second embodiment that is shown in
An intermediate value of this first rule R1, d≅0.35·D, is illustrated by the third embodiment that is shown in
According to the second rule R2, the clearance h of the bottom 7 is tied to the overall diameter D of the bottom 7 by a proportionality relationship at a ratio of between 0.02 (2%) and 0.08 (8%):
0.02·D≤h≤0.08·D (R2)
In the first embodiment, illustrated in
h≅0.03·D
In the second embodiment, illustrated in
h≅0.07·D
In the third embodiment, illustrated in
h≅0.05·D
According to the third rule R3, the angle A of the tangent at the point of inflection PI with the transverse plane T is between 4° and 38°:
4°≤A≤38° (R3)
The angle A is, moreover, advantageously between 30° and 35°:
30°≤A≤35°
In the first embodiment, illustrated in
A≅32°
In the second embodiment, illustrated in
A≅30°
In the third embodiment, illustrated in
A≅29°
According to the fourth rule R4, the thickness E of the bottom 7 is variable based on the curvilinear abscissa S, between the origin (S=0) and the junction with the body (S=L), according to three criteria, namely a first criterion (R4.1) that is applied to the central cross-section [0; S1], a second criterion (R4.2) that is applied to the intermediate cross-section [S1; S2], and a third criterion (R4.3) that is applied to the peripheral cross-section [S2; L].
According to the first criterion (R4.1), in the central cross-section [0; S1] of the bottom 7, the thickness E of the preform 1 is between 65% and 95% of the thickness E0 of the preform 1 at the lower end 8 of the body 3:
0.65·E0≤E≤0.95·E0 (R4.1)
Preferably, in the central cross-section [0; S1] of the bottom 7, the thickness E of the preform 1 is even between 70% and 80% of the thickness E0 of the preform 1 at the lower end 8 of the body 3:
0.70·E0≤E≤0.8·E0 (R4.1)
According to a preferred embodiment that is illustrated in
E=K1·E0−K2·S
where K1 and K2 are strictly positive constant real numbers.
In the first embodiment, illustrated in
E=0.56·E0−0.011·S
In this case, taking into account the weakness of the coefficient K2, it is possible to disregard the variable term and to consider the thickness E to be roughly constant, in the entire central cross-section [0; S1] of the bottom 7, by being proportional to the thickness E0:
E≅0.56·E0
In the second embodiment, illustrated in
E=0.8·E0−0.043·S
Also in this case, taking into account the weakness of the coefficient K2, it is possible to disregard the variable term and to consider the thickness E to be roughly constant, in the entire central cross-section [0; S1] of the bottom 7, by being proportional to the thickness E0:
E≅0.8·E0
In the third embodiment, illustrated in
E=0.75·E0−0.026·S
Also in this case, taking into account the weakness of the coefficient K2, it is possible to disregard the variable term and to consider the thickness E to be roughly constant, in the entire central cross-section [0; S1] of the bottom 7, by being proportional to the thickness E0:
E≅0.75·E0
According to the second criterion (R4.2), in the intermediate cross-section [S1; S2] of the bottom, the thickness E of the preform 1 is strictly less than its value at any point of the central cross-section [0; S1].
In addition, in the intermediate cross-section [S1; S2], the thickness E is preferably essentially constant, while being between 50% and 75% of the thickness E0:
0.5·E0≤E≤0.75·E0
In the first embodiment, illustrated in
E≅0.54·E0
In the second embodiment, illustrated in
E≅0.72·E0
In the third embodiment, illustrated in
E≅0.70·E0
According to the third criterion (R4.3), in the peripheral cross-section [S2; L] of the bottom 7, the thickness E of the preform 1 is increasing (until reaching the value E0 at the lower end 8 of the body 3).
Tests carried out for the forming of petaloid bottoms (like the bottom 12 that is illustrated in
A more detailed analysis shows that, unlike the known petaloid bottoms on which a bulge of material is observed at this junction, which will promote cracking (in all likelihood), the thickness of the petaloid bottom 12 that is produced with a preform 1 such as described above, and in particular a preform 1 in accordance with the third embodiment, illustrated in
A mold 20 for forming a preform 1 as described above was partially shown in
Such a mold 20 comprises, on the one hand, a mold body 21 that has a side wall 22 that bears the impression of the external face 17 of the preform 1 on the level of the body 3 and a mold bottom 23 that bears the impression of the external face 17 of the preform 1 on the level of the bottom 7, and, on the other hand, a core 24 that bears the impression of the internal face 18 of the preform 1.
The mold body 21 and the mold bottom 23 are stationary, while the core 24 can move in translation in relation to the latter to make possible the evacuation and the uncovering of the preform 1, once formed.
As
As
A refrigerant (such as water), introduced into the injector 27, passes through the scallops 28 and circulates between the injector 27 and the envelope 26 to adjust the temperature of the latter to a moderate value and thus to ensure the cooling, via its internal face 18, of the preform 1 immediately after its forming.
The material (for example, PET) is introduced in molten form, by means of a device (not shown) for injection via a hole 29 that is pierced in the center of the mold bottom 23.
As a variant, it is possible to imagine forming the preform 1 by techniques other than simple injection, in particular injection-compression.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1562520 | Dec 2015 | FR | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/FR2016/052980 | 11/17/2016 | WO | 00 |